Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing ...

Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective

Peggy A. Ertmer and Timothy J. Newby

The need for a bridge between basic learning research and educational practice has long been discussed. To ensure a strong connection between these two areas, Dewey (cited in Reigeluth, 1983) called for the creation and development of a "linking science"; Tyler (1978) a "middleman position"; and Lynch (1945) for employing an "engineering analogy" as an aid for translating theory into practice. In each case, the respective author highlighted the information and potential contributions of available learning theories, the pressing problems faced by those dealing with practical learning issues, and a general lack of using the former to facilitate solutions for the latter. The value of such a bridging function would be its ability to translate relevant aspects of the learning theories into optimal instructional actions. As described by Reigeluth (1983), the field of Instructional Design performs this role.

Instructional designers have been charged with "translating principles of learning and instruction into specifications for instructional materials and activities" (Smith & Ragan, 1993, p. 12). To achieve

The way we define learning and what we believe about the way learning occurs has important implications for situations in which we want to facilitate changes in what people know and/or do. Learning theories provide instructional designers with verified instructional strategies and techniques for facilitating learning as well as a foundation for intelligent strategy selection. Yet many designers are operating under the constraints of a limited theoretical background. This paper is an attempt to familiarize designers with three relevant positions on learning (behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist) which provide structured foundations for planning and conducting instructional design activities. Each learning perspective is discussed in terms of its specific interpretation of the learning process and the resulting implications for instructional designers and educational practitioners. The information presented here provides the reader with a comparison of these three different viewpoints and illustrates how these differences might be translated into practical applications in instructional situations.

this goal, two sets of skills and knowledge are

needed. First, the designer must understand the position of the practitio-

ner. In this regard, the following questions would be relevant: What are

"Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective" by P.A. Ertmer and T.J. Newby is reprinted from Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 1993, pp. 50?72. doi: 10.1111/j.19378327.1993.tb00605.x

43

P E R F O R M A N C E I M P R O V E M E N T Q U A R T E R LY, 2 6 ( 2 ) P P. 4 3 ? 7 1 ? 2013 International Society for Performance Improvement Published online in Wiley Online Library (). DOI: 10.1002/piq.21143

the situational and contextual constraints of the application? What is the degree of individual differences among the learners? What form of solutions will or will not be accepted by the learners as well as by those actually teaching the materials? The designer must have the ability to diagnose and analyze practical learning problems. Just as a doctor cannot prescribe an effective remedy without a proper diagnosis, the instructional designer cannot properly recommend an effective prescriptive solution without an accurate analysis of the instructional problem.

In addition to understanding and analyzing the problem, a second core of knowledge and skills is needed to "bridge" or "link" application with research--that of understanding the potential sources of solutions (i.e., the theories of human learning). Through this understanding, a proper prescriptive solution can be matched with a given diagnosed problem. The critical link, therefore, is not between the design of instruction and an autonomous body of knowledge about instructional phenomena, but between instructional design issues and the theories of human learning.

Why this emphasis on learning theory and research? First, learning theories are a source of verified instructional strategies, tactics, and techniques. Knowledge of a variety of such strategies is critical when attempting to select an effective prescription for overcoming a given instructional problem. Second, learning theories provide the foundation for intelligent and reasoned strategy selection. Designers must have an adequate repertoire of strategies available, and possess the knowledge of when and why to employ each. This knowledge depends on the designer's ability to match the demands of the task with an instructional strategy that helps the learner. Third, integration of the selected strategy within the instructional context is of critical importance. Learning theories and research often provide information about relationships among instructional components and the design of instruction, indicating how specific techniques/strategies might best fit within a given context and with specific learners (Keller, 1979). Finally, the ultimate role of a theory is to allow for reliable prediction (Richey, 1986). Effective solutions to practical instructional problems are often constrained by limited time and resources. It is paramount that those strategies selected and implemented have the highest chance for success. As suggested by Warries (1990), a selection based on strong research is much more reliable than one based on "instructional phenomena."

The task of translating learning theory into practical applications would be greatly simplified if the learning process were relatively simple and straightforward. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Learning is a complex process that has generated numerous interpretations and theories of how it is effectively accomplished. Of these many theories, which should receive the attention of the instructional designer? Is it better to choose one theory when designing instruction or to draw ideas from different theories? This article presents three distinct perspectives of the learning process (behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist) and although each has many unique features, it is our belief that each still describes the

44

DOI: 10.1002/piq

Performance Improvement Quarterly

same phenomena (learning). In selecting the theory whose associated

instructional strategies offers the optimal means for achieving desired

outcomes, the degree of cognitive processing required of the learner by

the specific task appears to be a critical factor. Therefore, as emphasized

by Snelbecker (1983), individuals addressing practical learning problems

cannot afford the "luxury of restricting themselves to only one theoretical

position . . . [They] are urged to examine each of the basic science theories

which have been developed by psychologists in the study of learning and

to select those principles and conceptions which seem to be of value for

one's particular educational situation" (p. 8). If knowledge of the various learning theories is so

important for instructional designers, to what degree are they emphasized and promoted? As reported by Johnson (1992), less than two percent of the courses offered in university curricula in the general area of edu-

Less than two percent of the courses offered in university curricula in the general area of educational technology

cational technology emphasize "theory" as one of their emphasize "theory" as one

key concepts. It appears that the real benefits of theo- of their key concepts.

retical knowledge are, at present, not being realized.

This article is an attempt to "fill in some of the gaps" that may exist in

our knowledge of modern learning theories. The main intent is to provide

designers with some familiarity with three relevant positions on learning

(behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist) which should provide a more

structured foundation for planning and conducting instructional design

activities. The idea is that if we understand some of the deep principles of

the theories of learning, we can extrapolate to the particulars as needed.

As Bruner (1971) states, "You don't need to encounter everything in nature

in order to know nature" (p. 18). A basic understanding of the learning

theories can provide you with a "canny strategy whereby you could know

a great deal about a lot of things while keeping very little in mind" (p. 18).

It is expected that after reading this article, instructional designers

and educational practitioners should be better informed "consumers" of

the strategies suggested by each viewpoint. The concise information pre-

sented here can serve as an initial base of knowledge for making impor-

tant decisions regarding instructional objectives and strategies.

Learning Defined

Learning has been defined in numerous ways by many different theorists, researchers and educational practitioners. Although universal agreement on any single definition is nonexistent, many definitions employ common elements. The following definition by Shuell (as interpreted by Schunk, 1991) incorporates these main ideas: "Learning is an enduring change in behavior, or in the capacity to behave in a given fashion, which results from practice or other forms of experience" (p. 2).

Undoubtedly, some learning theorists will disagree on the definition of learning presented here. However, it is not the definition itself that separates a given theory from the rest. The major differences among

Volume 26, Number 2 / 2013

DOI: 10.1002/piq

45

theories lie more in interpretation than they do in definition. These differences revolve around a number of key issues that ultimately delineate the instructional prescriptions that flow from each theoretical perspective. Schunk (1991) lists five definitive questions that serve to distinguish each learning theory from the others:

(l) How does learning occur? (2) Which factors influence learning? (3) What is the role of memory? (4) How does transfer occur? and (5) What types of learning are best explained by the theory?

Expanding on this original list, we have included two additional questions important to the instructional designer:

(6) What basic assumptions/principles of this theory are relevant to instructional design? and

(7) How should instruction be structured to facilitate learning?

In this article, each of these questions is answered from three distinct viewpoints: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Although learning theories typically are divided into two categories--behavioral and cognitive--a third category, constructive, is added here because of its recent emphasis in the instructional design literature (e.g., Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry, 1991; Duffy & Jonassen, 1991; Jonassen, 1991b; Winn, 1991). In many ways these viewpoints overlap; yet they are distinctive enough to be treated as separate approaches to understanding and describing learning. These three particular positions were chosen because of their importance, both historically and currently, to the field of instructional design. It is hoped that the answers to the first five questions will provide the reader with a basic understanding of how these viewpoints differ. The answers to the last two questions will translate these differences into practical suggestions and recommendations for the application of these principles in the design of instruction.

These seven questions provide the basis for the article's structure. For each of the three theoretical positions, the questions are addressed and an example is given to illustrate the application of that perspective. It is expected that this approach will enable the reader to compare and contrast the different viewpoints on each of the seven issues.

As is common in any attempt to compare and contrast similar products, processes, or ideas, differences are emphasized in order to make distinctions clear. This is not to suggest that there are no similarities among these viewpoints or that there are no overlapping features. In fact, different learning theories will often prescribe the same instructional methods for the same situations (only with different terminology and possibly with different intentions). This article outlines the major differences between the three positions in an attempt to facilitate comparison. It is our hope

46

DOI: 10.1002/piq

Performance Improvement Quarterly

that the reader will gain greater insight into what each viewpoint offers in terms of the design and presentation of materials, as well as the types of learning activities that might be prescribed.

Historical Foundations

Current learning theories have roots that extend far into the past. The

problems with which today's theorists and researchers grapple and strug-

gle are not new but simply variations on a timeless theme: Where does

knowledge come from and how do people come to know? Two opposing

positions on the origins of knowledge--empiricism and rationalism--

have existed for centuries and are still evident, to varying degrees, in the

learning theories of today. A brief description of these views is included

here as a background for comparing the "modern" learning viewpoints of

behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism.

Empiricism is the view that experience is the primary source of

knowledge (Schunk, 1991). That is, organisms are born with basically

no knowledge and anything learned is gained through interactions and

associations with the environment. Beginning with Aristotle (384?322

B.C.), empiricists have espoused the view that knowledge is derived from

sensory impressions. Those impressions, when associated contiguously in time and/or space, can be hooked together to form complex ideas. For example,

The goal of instruction for the behaviorist is to

the complex idea of a tree, as illustrated by Hulse, elicit the desired response

Egeth, and Deese (1980), can be built from the less from the learner who is

complex ideas of branches and leaves, which in turn presented with a target

are built from the ideas of wood and fiber, which are built from basic sensations such as greenness, woody

stimulus.

odor, and so forth. From this perspective, critical instructional design

issues focus on how to manipulate the environment in order to improve

and ensure the occurrence of proper associations.

Rationalism is the view that knowledge derives from reason without

the aid of the senses (Schunk, 1991). This fundamental belief in the dis-

tinction between mind and matter originated with Plato (c. 427?347 B.C.),

and is reflected in the viewpoint that humans learn by recalling or "dis-

covering" what already exists in the mind. For example, the direct experi-

ence with a tree during one's lifetime simply serves to reveal that which

is already in the mind. The "real" nature of the tree (greenness, woodi-

ness, and other characteristics) becomes known, not through the experi-

ence, but through a reflection on one's idea about the given instance of a

tree. Although later rationalists differed on some of Plato's other ideas,

the central belief remained the same: that knowledge arises through the

mind. From this perspective, instructional design issues focus on how

best to structure new information in order to facilitate (1) the learners'

encoding of this new information, as well as (2) the recalling of that which

is already known.

Volume 26, Number 2 / 2013

DOI: 10.1002/piq

47

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download